Sensors and Cameras

[domu221]

My advice is do not think too much.

Yes, i really love your advice... but its still bothering me that consumer-grade cameras have ugly sensors that's why it isn't worth anything to buy a consumer dslr.

 

[greybeard]

As for you original question, Nikon uses the same sensor on the d5100 and d7000.

 

[Seefutlung]

Sometimes, mostly based on whether they're being manufactured in the same generation (time frame) and whether they are in the same basic class with each other. To find out which ones use the same sensors, you'd have to do some comparisons. www.dpreview.com is a good place to find out such details.

...
I started this thread cause it really really bothers me that entry-levels cant take sharp, good pictures because of their sensors are very limited. OK OK, I know this is somewhat wrong but I keep thinking that an entry level camera cant do something the D300s can because of its sensor in the DX camera line. In other words, i keep thinking that cheap cameras cant take pics like an expensive cameras can. ...

Up to an 8x10 and under ISO 800, all else being even, there is no significant difference in IQ between the flagship Nikon or Canon and an entry level dSLR. If you toss a bunch of 8x10 on a table you will be unable to separate them by manufacturer and/or camera model.

Generally, the more expensive the camera/lens, the easier it is to consistently capture the exceptional image (for most of us, capturing the exceptional image is what photography is all about). Lenses and photographic skill will make a significant difference for images of 8x10- and under ISO 800. What you may be seeing is that photos taken with more expensive cameras and lenses are proportionally more captivating than images taken with less expensive hardware. That is probably because, generally, the better the greater the skill and experienced of the photographer the greater the propensity/need/desire for better, more expensive equipment. Again, generally, better photographers will be using better equipment and better photographers seek out and capture the exceptional, most captivating images with greater consistency than photographers with lesser skill and experience.

Gary

 

[Dao]

My advice is do not think too much.

Yes, i really love your advice... but its still bothering me that consumer-grade cameras have ugly sensors that's why it isn't worth anything to buy a consumer dslr.

Your observations and conclusion may not be correct.

You are right that consumer grade cameras cost less and in the real world examples, the images that coming out from the entry level DSLR may not be as good as the professional DSLR or other professional cameras. I know that is the facts, however, the reason behind that is not sensor related.

There are a lot of other factors. The people who use the entry level camera maybe one of them. The person who bought the entry level camera may have a limited budget. The experience, the knowledge ... ... ... etc


There are other features in the camera that make it cost more. Better build, faster AF, more focus points, higher fps, weather seal, dual wheels system with top display, larger sensor (cost more usually), professional care service available, dual memory card slots, bigger viewfinder ... ... ... ...

 

[jaomul]

Usually similar sized sensors with same brand cameras in a timeframe use similar sensors as Buckster said earlier. The canon 550d,60d and 7d use a similar chip but are different specced cameras due to ruggedness and more ergonomic designed interface for ease of use and weatherproofing etc. You can buy an entry level camera and get as good results as its more expensive brother, but it may not do as many shots per second or focus as fast or hold up to abuse. These areas are where a lot of money go when you up the price point on a camera.

 

[Seefutlung]

My advice is do not think too much.

Yes, i really love your advice... but its still bothering me that consumer-grade cameras have ugly sensors that's why it isn't worth anything to buy a consumer dslr.

PS- At one time Nikon had CCD sensors on their consumer/prosumer cameras and CMOS on their pro line, which, at elevated ISO the CCD sensors sucked when compared to CMOS. Now all Nikon sensors are CMOS on all their cameras. Canon has always used CMOS sensors on all their cameras. There is more to sensor technology than merely CCD v. CMOS ... but I am trying to stay non-technical and speak in general terms (there are always exceptions like Foveon sensors and the new Nikon D800 may be an exception to my first post, but we're not speaking of exceptions.)

G

 

[amolitor]

Consumer DSLRs are fine. A current generation consumer DSLR has just as many pixels as a previous generation full-frame DSLR, and the last generation of full-frame DSLRs wasn't worthless, was it?

There are some technical details surrounding a smaller sensor, but they're kind of fiddly and not very relevant. The performance characteristics of a smaller sensor are somewhat different, but only "worse" in a couple of ways which don't matter that much. You can do excellent work with a current generation bottom-of-the-line DSLR. You could do excellent work with the previous generation as well. And the one before that. You can do excellent work with an iPhone.

The full-frame DSLR gives you slightly more flexibility, but the advantages of the full-frame are pretty subtle. Most of what you're buying with the full-frame (other than bragging rights) is a bigger, stronger, more well-built body with more features aimed at professional photographers. They throw the full-frame sensor in as one of a collection of relatively minor upgrades that, taken together, give you a system that has the flexibility and features that pros want to see.

 

[KmH]

Perhaps ironically, the image sensor users that most often deal with very, very low light levels, astronomers, use CCD image sensors almost exclusively in lieu of CMOS image sensors.

Camera makers use CMOS image sensors for 2 main reasons:
1. It costs significantly less to make CMOS image sensors than to make CCD image sensors.
2. CMOS uses significantly less power than an equivalent CCD image sensor.

 

[Buckster]

Its most basic geometrics, so nothing to check there.

Lenses for use with medium format digital are not bigger than those for full frame, and full-frame lenses are not bigger than lenses used with crop-frame cameras.

The same was and is true for film. 35mm, medium format, large format - lenses were not necessarily bigger for each larger format.

Well - thats because they stop growing with the format, though.

Its especially obvious with large format where the lens may be much smaller than the film.

But even for medium format its already noticeable. No more f/1.4, f/1.2 or even f/0.95 primes. Instead we get a Planar 80/2 for the Contax 645 and a SUMMARIT-S 70 mm f/2,5 for the Leica S2 (both are the closest equivalents for 50mm on full frame).

As a result, the apertures available for medium and large format are increasingly smaller.

How does any of that matter when, in real life, there are larger sensors being made (medium format), yet the lenses for the cameras that use them aren't 8X or 10X or XX-X bigger or heavier, as you say they would need to be in order to accommodate that larger sensor?

Again, the larger sensors already exist, but the giant, heavy lenses you say would be necessary aren't necessary at all.

By the way, how does ANY of that in any way address the OP's actual question?

 

[orb9220]

Don't understand the concern for differences in sensor performance. Everyone especially new to photography seems obsessive about sensor performance. Even tho the majority shoot 95% of their shots in good light at 200 iso and rarely a need to shoot at above 800. Exception shooting a lot of lower light situations that require a better high iso performer. And many of the cameras do well if not exceptional like my older D90 and fast glass or flash.

And entry level cameras vs. more pro orientated is all about additional controls,build & features like mentioned earlier. I started with a D40 entry camera. And was frustrated with lack of features & controls within 9months. And upgrade had little to do with sensor performance. It was more about having a built in motor for AF and AF-D lenses and built in flash commander for off shoe flash. Bigger Brighter Viewfinder for easier composing and dedicated controls so I can change setting on the fly without my eye leaving the viewfinder to go menu digging and missing the shot.

And Image IQ has more to do with glass & skill. Knowing the camera and lens and it's limitations and working within or around them.

Tho I do prefer older CCD over CMOS. CMOS has better high ISO but seems also outputs colder less natural that my ole' D200 gave me. A much warmer natural image.

If You Can't produce a Great Image with an entry camera. Stop there as a more expensive & capable body isn't going to make that situation any better. Only practice,discipline and learning your camera & lenses. Will increase your skill level and transform crappy images into better images. And newer Sensor performance has little to do with that.

"Beginning and unskilled photographers think it's all about the camera.
Intermediate photographers think it's all about the composition.
Advanced photographers know it's all about the light."

 

[amolitor]

Its most basic geometrics, so nothing to check there.

Lenses for use with medium format digital are not bigger than those for full frame, and full-frame lenses are not bigger than lenses used with crop-frame cameras.

The same was and is true for film. 35mm, medium format, large format - lenses were not necessarily bigger for each larger format.

On what planet is this generally true?

While it's true that crop sensor and full frame lenses are generally about the same size:

a) Nikon, at least, has a line of lenses built for crop sensors which are quite light albeit not physically very small
b) medium format lenses are often much bigger than equivalent 35mm/full-frame lenses
c) large format lenses are gigantic beasts for an equivalent.

Lens sizes DO go up for larger formats, all else being equal.

What Solarflare probably means is:

make the sensor twice as wide, and it gets 4x the area (this has been covered) AND the equivalent lens length also doubles. In order to retain the same aperature, it also gets twice as wide, and since it's a cylinder, twice as tall, which is in fact 8x the "size" in some sense. In reality the length only goes up a little, since you're MOSTLY just moving it further from the image plane for length. It does go up 4x in cross section, and it does get physically longer, though.

 

[cgipson1]

Its most basic geometrics, so nothing to check there.

Lenses for use with medium format digital are not bigger than those for full frame, and full-frame lenses are not bigger than lenses used with crop-frame cameras.

The same was and is true for film. 35mm, medium format, large format - lenses were not necessarily bigger for each larger format.

Well - thats because they stop growing with the format, though.

Its especially obvious with large format where the lens may be much smaller than the film.

But even for medium format its already noticeable. No more f/1.4, f/1.2 or even f/0.95 primes. Instead we get a Planar 80/2 for the Contax 645 and a SUMMARIT-S 70 mm f/2,5 for the Leica S2 (both are the closest equivalents for 50mm on full frame).

As a result, the apertures available for medium and large format are increasingly smaller.

Do you even realize that DOF on medium or large format cameras is very small compared to 35mm?? And you don't need apertures like 1.4 or smaller?

You have never shot those formats, have you? Just trying to justify your earlier statement?

 

[cgipson1]

My advice is do not think too much.

Yes, i really love your advice... but its still bothering me that consumer-grade cameras have ugly sensors that's why it isn't worth anything to buy a consumer dslr.

That is a incorrect statement.... You can get wonderful photographs with a crop sensor. It is all based on knowledge and experience.... different sensor sizes just make it more affordable for beginners to get a decent body. Crops have some advantages over Full Frame sensors like DOF... and Cost. Full frames typically have better low light capability, and shallower DOF. It all depends on what you need.

You can buy a $6000.00 fullframe.. and I promise you that you will not get any better photos than you would with a $400 crop sensor, UNLESS you know what you are doing!

 

[Buckster]

Its most basic geometrics, so nothing to check there.

Lenses for use with medium format digital are not bigger than those for full frame, and full-frame lenses are not bigger than lenses used with crop-frame cameras.

The same was and is true for film. 35mm, medium format, large format - lenses were not necessarily bigger for each larger format.

On what planet is this generally true?

Earth, smart guy.

While it's true that crop sensor and full frame lenses are generally about the same size:

That's right. Now do the math.

a) Nikon, at least, has a line of lenses built for crop sensors which are quite light albeit not physically very small

The cheap ones have fewer elements, which makes them lighter. You can get them for full frame Nikons and Canons as well. The sensor size doesn't dictate the lens size or weight.

b) medium format lenses are often much bigger than equivalent 35mm/full-frame lenses

No, they're not. I have a couple dozen MF cameras here, and for most, I have more than one, and sometimes several lenses. You?

c) large format lenses are gigantic beasts for an equivalent.

No, they absolutely are not. I have a few of them here as well and can clearly see with my own eyeballs from where I'm sitting that they do not have gigantic beasts for lenses. You?

Lens sizes DO go up for larger formats, all else being equal.

No, they don't. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's just not true.

What Solarflare probably means is:

make the sensor twice as wide, and it gets 4x the area (this has been covered)

Not unless you also make it twice as long. And then we're not "doubling the size" anymore; We're talking about doubling the dimensions - two very different things.

AND the equivalent lens length also doubles.

No, it absolutely doesn't.

In order to retain the same aperature, it also gets twice as wide,

The physics of larger sensors and film planes is that they don't need the same apertures as smaller ones to achieve the same DOF, look and quality.

and since it's a cylinder, twice as tall, which is in fact 8x the "size" in some sense. In reality the length only goes up a little, since you're MOSTLY just moving it further from the image plane for length. It does go up 4x in cross section, and it does get physically longer, though.

This is just silly. Go look at medium and large format cameras and their lenses, and get back to me.

I'm looking at several shelves full of DSLRs and SLRs and TLRs, crop, full, MF and LF, and I can see quite clearly that the lenses on them have NO requirement to be bigger for the larger format films/sensors. In many cases, the MFs and LFs actually have smaller lenses than the SLRs and DSLRs.

Oh, and while you're pulling balogna out of dark crevices, explain how it's at all possible for all these large format pinhole cameras to work at all, if they need "giant beasts" for lenses: http://www.google.com/search?q=larg...w&biw=1284&bih=877&sei=PW0ZUOSXNc_siQKAyYH4BA

 

[amolitor]

50/2.0 Nikkor - standard lens for 35mm/full-frame, slightly fast
210/5.6 Caltar - standard lens for 4x5, slightly slow